The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around December 2004, the Defendant made a false statement that “Around December 2004, the Defendant, at a coffee shop on the trade name, Seosung-dong, Daejeon Sung-gu, Daejeon, received the construction site of steco construction site for the steco suspended in the old Emco construction site located in Daejeon Sung-gu D, and the expenses will be awarded to the site electrical construction on the high seas.”

In fact, even if the defendant was provided with expenses from C, he did not have the intention or ability to contract the field electrical construction.

On April 11, 2005, the Defendant received 70,000 won from C to his account in the name of F, a subsequent account of C, from a non-place on April 11, 2005, and acquired 27,447,00 won from around that time to November 17, 2006 as stated in the annexed crime list.

2. The Defendant, since the investigation agency, consistently from the date to the court, consistently stated that the Defendant received the cost of electrical construction on the ground that he would give a contract for electrical construction if he/she takes over the construction site, and did not conclude that he/she took over the construction site. While he/she endeavored to take over the construction site, he/she denies the intent of deception and fraud.

The key issue is whether or not the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “the Defendant had taken over the construction site of Spanco.”

As seen so consistent, C’s statement at the investigative agency is difficult to believe in the court as long as C reverses C’s statement to the effect that “at the time, the Defendant was taking over the construction site, and the Defendant would take the electrical construction upon acceptance. The Defendant subsidized the expenses to be taken over to the Defendant at the time of taking over the contract for electrical construction.”

The remainder of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant was provided with expenses by C without the ability to contract electrical construction as well as the defendant's deception. Therefore, the facts charged in the instant case are proven.